Hi folks,
Iím Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix on March the 21st,
2012. For newcomers, as always, I recommend that you go into cuttingthroughthematrix.com,
and help yourself to all the free audios available there. Remember youíll
see a whole bunch of sites listed. These are the official sites, and they
carry audios, but they also carry transcripts of a lot of the talks Iíve given
in English. And you can go into alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for
transcripts in other languages.

And
remember, you are the audience that bring me to you. I donít bring on
advertisers as guests. I donít have shares in any products sold, or own
them, the companies, outright either. So, itís up to you if you want to keep
getting different kinds of information to complete your understanding of the
system that youíre born into, to keep me going, by buying the books and discs
at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. From the US to Canada, you can use a
personal check, or an international postal money order from the post
office. Some people send cash. And you can also use PayPal.
And across the world, youíve got Western Union, Money Gram, and PayPal. Remember,
straight donations are really, really, really welcome.

And what I
do, as Iíve often said, is I tend to chronicle the events, as we go through
them, and nothing is surprising, really, when you understand and read the
proper books, because the Big Boys, down through the last well over a hundred
years have written books themselves, mainly for universities or for their own
ďinĒ crowd, basically, outlaying where theyíre going, and where theyíre taking
the world, and why theyíre taking the world this way. And the big, big
changes that the world will experience, thatís all of us, of course, as we go
through these particular agendas. And theyíre very forthright about it,
if you understand what theyíre saying. And they even have time tables of
implementations. Youíll find most of these, even at the United Nations
departments. They have ongoing plans, just like the Soviet Union did, for
50 years for one plan, 5 years for another, 100 years for another. And
thatís how they keep control of the world. Thatís how the world is really
run, like a big corporation. They do the same thing, international
corporations, to do with how many companies or which companies will take over
in the next ten, fifteen years, if thatís their goal. And investments up
to even fifty or more years ahead.

So, at the
bottom level the ordinary people really donít have much plans, you see.
You canít imagine that kind of thing going on, and so you tend to think that
everything, the whole world, is just sort of bumbling through time by itself,
happenstance, and nothing is further from the truth. That goes too for
governments, because theyíre all part of one single agenda and have been for
quite some time. Iíve gone into the history of the Council on Foreign
Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Even the Milner
Group was a major part of starting it all off, and how they would eventually
bring through UNESCO and other world organizations a common curriculum for all
school children, and how everyone across the world would be taught the same
basic disinformation. And it is disinformation, because they eradicate
most of history. They certainly alter all the rest. And that
becomes your reality.

And in politics, they simply are meant to catch the flack,
the tomatoes that you throw at them, because you donít like their policies, as
they keep upping your prices and so on, but itís all part of a grand design, a
grand policy of bringing you into austerity. And also getting you used to
ongoing wars. Ongoing wars. A bigger plan than that, in fact,
because you see, austerity is not a new thing from the eliteís point of
view. Itís not new at all. And in fact, theyíve talked about it
before. Malthus talked about it. And others even before him talked
about keeping the peasantry in austerity or poverty, basically. So,
through warfare, ongoing war and taxes increasing and all the rest of it, and
inflation, and again, oh, God, we canít get enough energy Ė suddenly itís
energy Ė well, weíve got to bring the people into austerity. Well, weíll
talk about that tonight. Back after this break.

Hi folks,
Iím back, Cutting Through the Matrix. And Iíve talked about, as I
say, the beginnings of, at least the beginnings that were put into history by
the boys themselves, their own history. At least they did give us an idea
of how this big organization came to be for modern times. And they talked
about the creation of the Royal Institute of International Affairs for
instance. And it was already a massive organization. Sometimes
their books are cloaked by titles like the Future of the British Empire.
But when you look inside the books, itís the Council on Foreign Relations and
the books are funded and even the big world meetings are funded by the
Rockefeller boys in the foundation. And they do have lots and lots of
members. And the strangest thing, when you get a hold of these books, the
books that have all the minutes of their meetings and all the attendees, the
attendees, mind you, are all indexed at the back. They donít let you know
exactly who said what, but you can figure it out, when it says ďthe
representative of Australia said blah, blah, blah. We want World
Government,Ē you know, thatís from the 1930s, things like that. So, they
do give a lot away. But remember, the whole idea of the Royal Institute
of International Affairs was to create a sort of, use the British Empire as the
foundation for a World Government. And thatís very important to
remember. And people in America too forget that their own intelligentsia
were doing so well in business, etc, with Britain and cashing in on it, that
they almost became British themselves. Very much so. Right down to
even getting themselves coats of arms made. And bringing over suits of
armor and things like that to decorate their big mansions they were
building. That was the big in-thing.

And you
have to go into other peopleís writings too, to see that itís still going on
today, this sort of British embryo that blossomed into whatís called the New
World Order. Tonight Iíll put up a link to show you how well itís still
working, because even though itís done by the LaRouche organization. Now
LaRouche, as far as I can see is still an ardent Communist. Heís
completely international. And he wants our expenses, our extra money
basically to go into space research. So, itís just another alternative to
war. War is also about the destruction of disposable goods and
money. So, their idea too is to use it, once theyíve got this perfect
world system and send up rockets that will just blow up and all the rest of it,
to the moon and elsewhere, and thatís how they can still keep you in a state of
poverty, because itís essential a good amount of the populace, it doesnít
matter if itís middle class or lower class, are kept always living on the last
penny, to the next paycheck. Itís essential to keep order.

So, Iíll
put up that link tonight, and youíll hear Obama giving a speech to the Queen
and toasting her, and saying that he is her humble and obedient servant.
Now, in the British system, youíve got to understand, that was an official
announcement to the Queen in front of all the higher witnesses and you see, in
Britain thereís only two kinds. Well, thereís three kinds, really.
Thereís the ruling oligarchy, and then there are the servants to the oligarchy,
and then there are subjects. The rest of the population are all called
subjects. You know, youíre not worthy of anything else. Youíre not
even a human being, youíre a subject, basically. So, he is a willing
servant, an obedient servant to the Queen. And itís on this LaRouche
documentary video. As I say, LaRouche himself is definitely coming at it
from the Communistic point of view, because he is an ardent Communist, and he
has a massive organization, well funded, and they also, well, they also put out
some good stuff as well, because they have a different mission by exposing the
same stuff. So, Iíll put that up tonight to show you how Obama is a member of
the same oligarchy that Lord Bertrand Russell talks about, many others talk
about. They were all part of it. And even the founders of the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, that started the whole thing off, Lord
Milner, the big international bankers, they said theyíd have to bring America
back on board. And itís also referred to offhandedly as ďour special
relationship.Ē Thatís how youíll often see it in the newspaper when the
Prime Minister of Britain is talking to the President of America, our special
relationship. This is the combination for world government of course.

And as I
say, Carroll Quigley gave the book out too, the Anglo-American
Establishment. You have to read it, because he was the historian for the
CFR and got access to their files and their archives. You find many other
players in this too, because scientific players are very, very important,
especially those who deal with sciences of society and the mind. And Iíve gone
through The Scientific Outlook before with Bertrand Russell, Lord Bertrand
Russell. And you have to really go through it, and go through it over and
over again too, because you see new things all the time. And he goes into
the technique in society. The technique as they call it is more than just
a technique of form. Itís the whole structure of the form and how you
control all of societies. And he goes on about Malthus on page 186.
He says, ďMalthusís theory of population, whether true or false, is certainly
scientific.Ē That was about population reduction, keeping a balance
amongst those at the bottom by putting them into areas where theyíll get
diseases, keeping them at a very poor style of food, limiting the food supply,
the types of food they were given, and that kind of thing. He says:

The arguments
by which he supports it are not appeals to prejudice, but to population
statistics and the expenses of agriculture. Adam Smith and Ricardo are also
scientific in their economics. Again, I do not mean to say that the theories
they advance are invariably true, but that their outlook and their type of
reasoning has the characteristics which distinguish scientific method.

(Alan: Now, you understand that they always try and
use science to convince the general public, and they always have done this, to
go into austerity and things like that. Or, ďweíve got to abort more
children.Ē And itís always to do with science and statistics and so
on. And, ďoh, thereís too many people, we canít feed them all,Ē as they
close down thousands of farms every year across the world. It says:)

The phrase
"survival of the fittest" proved too much for the intellects of those
who speculate on social questions. The word "fittest" seems to have
ethical implications, from which it follows that the nation, race, and class to
which a writer belongs must necessarily be the fittest.

(A: So, if youíre in that class, so you accept
Darwinism, you accept Malthus and population reduction. Itís because
youíre in that class, you think, well, they wonít touch us. Youíre doing
pretty well. Those in academia, for instance. So he says the:)

...class to
which a writer belongs must necessarily be the fittest.

(A: Obviously, if youíre pushing that stuff.)

Hence we
arrive, under the aegis of a pseudo-Darwinian philosophy, at doctrines such as
the Yellow Peril, Australia for the Australians, and the superiority of the
Nordic race. On account of the ethical bias, one must view all Darwinian
arguments on social questions with the greatest suspicion. This applies not
only as between different races, but also as between different classes in the
same nation. All Darwinian writers belong to the professional classes, and it
is therefore an accepted maxim of Darwinian politics that the professional
classes are biologically the most desirable. It follows that their sons ought
to get a better education at the public expense than that which is given to the
sons of wage-earners.

(A: And thatís what they call the people often, when
they write about wage-earners. Amongst themselves theyíve got more
derogatory terms.)

In all such
arguments it is impossible to see an application of science to practical
affairs. There is merely a borrowing of some of the language of science for the
purpose of making prejudice seem respectable.

There is,
however, a large amount of genuine experimental science in social affairs.
Perhaps the most important set of experiments in this realm is that which we
owe to advertisers.

(A: Advertisers. And also the general
media. And you understand the advertisers have more understanding, and a
lot of them branched off and became professors at universities, because theyíre
marketers. They know how to bend the mind, in other words, and get you to
go along with anything at all. Itís on the delivery that they give that
makes you go along with it. He says:)

This material,
valuable as it is, has not been utilized by experimental psychologists,

(A: Well, today it is, you see, after this book was
written.)

because it
belongs to a region remote from the Universities,

(A: Not today, as I say. Itís all part of it.)

and they would
feel themselves vulgarized by contact with anything so gross. But anybody who
is in earnest in studying the psychology of belief cannot do better than
consult the great advertising firms. No test of belief is so searching as the
financial one. When a man is willing to back his belief by spending money in
accordance with it, his belief must be regarded as genuine. Now this is
precisely the test which the advertiser is perpetually applying. Various
people's soaps are recommended in various ways; some of these ways produce the
desired result, others do not, or at any rate not to the same degree. Clearly
the advertisement which causes a man's soap to be bought is more effective in
creating belief than the one which does not.

(A: Now you can apply that to politics too, who are
you going to vote for, this guy is better than that one, and all the rest of
it, because massive marketing is employed. Itís all psychology.
Anyway, he goes on to say, down on page 188:)

From the
technique of advertising it seems to follow that in the great majority of
mankind any proposition will win acceptance if it is reiterated in such a way
as to remain in the memory.

(A: Repetition.)

Most of the
things that we believe we believe because we have heard them affirmed; we do
not remember where or why they were affirmed, and we are therefore unable to be
critical even when the affirmation was made by a man whose income would be
increased by its acceptance and was not backed by any evidence whatever.
Advertisements tend, therefore, as the technique becomes perfected, to be less
and less argumentative, and more and more merely striking. So long as an
impression is made, the desired result is achieved.

Considered
scientifically, advertisements have another great merit, which is that their
effect, so far as is known through the receipts of the advertisers, are mass
effects,

(A: Itís a mass effect on everyone.)

not effects
upon individuals, so that the data acquired are data as to mass psychology. For
the purposes of studying society rather than individuals, advertisements are
therefore invaluable. Unfortunately their purpose is practical rather than
scientific. For scientific purposes I suggest the following experiment. Let two
soaps, A and B, be manufactured, of which A is excellent and B abominable; let
A be advertised by stating its chemical composition and by testimonials from
eminent chemists; let B be advertised....

And then they bring in famous people from Hollywood to use it, the
beauties, etc, to help push it. Itís all parts of experiments which theyíd
already done. Back with more, after this break.

Hi folks, Iím back, Cutting Through the Matrix. Reading a book, itís The Scientific
Outlook from Bertrand Russell. And it was
in the 1930s he wrote this too, so a lot has changed. They have brought advertising
in big time, in mainstream, aimed at the public to change their behavior, ďGo
GreenĒ etc. And be austere. And then they get you collecting all
the plastic garbage that youíre forced to buy along with products and then you
package them for the companies which are given all the plastic for free.
Youíve already sorted it out for them, and itís all a big ha-ha at the top
levels, where you know the general public are giving them all the raw
materials, and then their tax money pays for it to be transported to the
factories which again were funded by the taxpayer so as that these individual
private companies can get all their stuff for free. Not a bad deal,
eh? But itís all Pavlovian training, you see. And Russell goes into
this kind of thing, and heís all for it of course, because he doesnít like the
wage-earner type. He doesnít mix with them. And he says that:

The advantages of advertisement have come to be
realized pretty fully by politicians, but are only beginning to be realized by
the Churches;

(A:
That was back in the 30s.)

when the Churches become more fully alive to its
advantages as compared with the traditional religious technique (which dates
from before the invention of printing), we may hope for a great revival of
faith. On the whole, the Soviet Government and the Communist religion are those
which hitherto have best understood the use of advertisement. They are, it is
true, somewhat hampered by the fact that most Russians cannot read;

(A:
That was back then.)

this obstacle, however, they are doing their best
to remove.

This
consideration brings us naturally to the subject of education, which is the
second great method of public propaganda.

(A: You see, itís public propaganda, your
education.)

Education has
two very different purposes: on the one hand it aims at developing the
individual and giving him knowledge which will be useful to him; on the other
hand it aims at producing citizens who will be convenient for the State or the
Church which is educating them. Up to a point these two purposes coincide in
practice: it is convenient to the State that citizens should be able to read,
and that they should possess some technical skill in virtue of which they are
able to do productive work;

(A: Because theyíre the ones that are going to be
taxed to death.)

it is
convenient that they should possess sufficient moral character to abstain
from...

(A: Now listen to this term.)

...abstain
from unsuccessful crime,

(A: Why does he say unsuccessful crime?
Because the whole monetary system, he knew darn well, since he worked amongst
them, is criminal, basically. Itís successful crime. Because they
never end up in prison when they rip off a country. Anyway, he says:)

and sufficient
intelligence to be able to direct their own lives. But when we pass beyond
these elementary requirements, the interests of the individual may often
conflict with those of the State or the Church. This is especially the case in
regard to credulity. To those who control publicity, credulity is an advantage,
while to the individual a power of critical judgment is likely to be
beneficial; consequently the State does not aim at producing a scientific habit
of mind, except in a small minority of experts, who are well paid, and
therefore, as a rule, supporters of the status quo.

Among those
who are not well paid credulity is more advantageous to the State; consequently
children in school are taught to believe what they are told and are punished if
they express disbelief.

(A: Itís still going on today. You
either be part of the group or youíre anti-social, you see. Donít be an
individual.)

In this way a
conditioned reflex is established, leading to a belief in anything said
authoritatively by elderly persons of importance.

(A: You see. Thatís how itís done.
Thatís why you have obedience to authority or uniforms or whatever. He
says:)

You and I,
reader, owe our immunity from spoliation to this beneficent precaution on the
part of our respective Governments.

One of the
purposes of the State in education is certainly, on the whole, beneficent. The
purpose in question is that of producing social coherence. In mediaeval Europe,
as in modern China, the lack of social coherence proved disastrous.

(A: And then he goes on to explain what happened.
He says at the bottom of the page.)

Modern
inventions and modern technique have had a powerful influence in promoting
uniformity of opinion

(A: You see. Uniformity of opinion.)

and making men
less individual than they used to be. Read, for example, The Stammering Century
by Gilbert Seldes, and compare it with America at the present day. In the
nineteenth century new sects were perpetually springing up, new prophets were
founding communities in the wilderness; celibacy, polygamy, free love, all had
their devotees, consisting not of single cranks, but of whole cities. A
somewhat similar mental condition existed in Germany in the sixteenth century,
in England in the seventeenth, and in Russia until the establishment of the
Soviet Government. But in the modern world there are three great sources of
uniformity in addition to education: these are the Press, the cinema,

(A: For your movies)

and the radio.

(A: Of course, theyíve got television now, as well.)

The Press has
become an agent of uniformity as a result of technical and financial causes:
the larger the circulation of a newspaper, the higher the rate it can charge
for its advertisements and the lower the cost of printing per copy. A foreign
correspondent costs just as much whether his newspaper has a large or a small
circulation; therefore his relative cost is diminished by every increase in
circulation.

(A: So he goes through the techniques of the media,
and how they must always advertise themselves. You hear all the
mainstream advertise themselves all the time. Thatís so as to try and get
them to increase their coverage, because the advertising can go up then, ďoh,
you reach millions of people,Ē and so on. And so, the advertising costs
go up. So, if you want to put an ad in their paper itís going to cost you
a fortune. And then some of them are so good, they can even get the ones who
read it to advertise for them for free. And they donít even know theyíre
getting used. Itís all techniques, isnít it? He says:)

But perhaps
the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema.

(A:
Movies, basically.)

Where the
cinema is concerned....

And weíll talk about that when
we come back from this break.

HI folks, Iím Alan Watt.
Weíre back Cutting Through the Matrix. Reading from The
Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell, Lord Bertrand Russell, a man who
was in many, he was a member of many international organizations. He was
given presidential authority in the US as part of the Macy Group, along with
the Vienna School that was brought over, and the Frankfurt School, to radically
change the Post-World War II culture of America, for more obedience to
authority. And actually, they said that America had too much in common
with their ex-enemy the Nazi regime. And thatís supposedly the reason
that Truman gave them the right to do this. And they did, every part of
culture change that weíve lived through from really the 40s to the present
time. The ongoing trends, the fashions, the morality or immorality, were all
discussed and helped to be put into effect by Bernays and Russell and many
others of the Macy Group, for those who donít understand it, including
abortion, that would become common and be treated like a normal cold or
something, you know. Thatís no kidding. Thatís how far back they
planned it, in the 1930s. Anyway, he says:

But perhaps
the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema.

(A: Movies, etc. He talks about the cost of
production, which is just colossal:)

The costs of a
good production are colossal, but are no less if it is exhibited seldom than if
it is exhibited often and everywhere. The Germans and the Russians have their
own productions....

(A: Well, they had then, because the Germans were
way ahead of America in the 30s, and most of them came over right to Hollywood
when they were kicked out, and started doing the same stuff there. Thatís
when you had those scantily-clad women on stage in the 1930s, it was very
risquť, and that came right from Germany. Same dances, same everything,
same costumery, only in Germany theyíd gone further at the time and they put
them naked, because there was a depression on and they did what they were
told. Anyway:)

In the rest of
the civilized world the products of Hollywood preponderate. The great majority
of young people in almost all civilized countries derive their ideas of love,
of honour, of the way to make money, and of the importance of good clothes,
from the evenings spent in seeing what Hollywood thinks good for them. I doubt
whether all the schools and churches combined have as much influence as the
cinema upon the opinions of the young in regard to such intimate matters as
love and marriage and money-making.

(A: Well, thatís absolutely true. Monkey see,
monkey do.)

The
producers of Hollywood are the high-priests of a new religion. Let us be
thankful for the lofty purity of their sentiments. We learn from them that sin
is always punished,

(A: Thatís how you watch the average movie, the bad
guy always gets it.)

and virtue is
always rewarded.

(A: Itís a complete fairy tale.)

True, the
reward is rather gross, and such as a more old-fashioned virtue might not
wholly appreciate. But what of that? We know from the cinema that wealth comes
to the virtuous,

(A: Just
because youíre good.† Youíre good so you
become wealthy. Itís a complete fantasy.)

and from real
life that old So-and-so has wealth. It follows that old So-and-so is virtuous,
and that the people who say he exploits his employees are slanderers and
troublemakers. The cinema therefore plays a useful part in safeguarding the
rich from the envy of the poor.

(A: And then Iím going to go back into, thereís many
other parts here too. And he goes on to the other techniques of holding
on to power. He says:)

The latest
stage in the education of the most intellectual....

(A: Intelligent, right. Heís talking about how
they classify all of the wage earners.)

The latest
stage in the education of the most intellectual of the governing class will consist
of training for research.

(A: So the governing class will consist of training
for research. Ongoing, never-ending research.)

Research will
be highly organized, and young people will not be allowed to choose what
particular piece of research they shall do.

(A: As Iíve said this before. You think in
science that you can go anywhere you want. No, you canít. The Big
Boys like Rockefeller and the ones that fund you, and the CIA, tell you which
area to go into.)

They will, of
course, be directed to research in those subjects for which they have shown
special ability. A great deal of scientific knowledge will be concealed from
all but a few. There will be arcana reserved for a priestly class of
researchers,

(A: And Iíve been told that from some professors who
have been lucky enough to get into real archives, as opposed to the university
libraries. They have real archives with very old stuff, which is all
proven and true. And he says, there will be a class of researchers:)

who will be
carefully selected for their combination of brains with loyalty. One may, I
think, expect that research will be much more technical than fundamental. The
men at the head of any department of research will be elderly,

(A: Now, this is true, how it is today.)

and content to
think that the fundamentals of their subject are sufficiently known.
Discoveries which upset the official view of fundamentals,

(A: Okay.)

if they are
made by young men,

(A: Young students.)

will incur
disfavour....

(A: In other words, you see, when you go into
university, and you go into experimentation in various sciences, and you come
up with some new thing that hasnít been discussed, well, believe you me,
theyíve found it long, long ago, but youíre not supposed to know it. And
if you do find it out, this is what he says:)

Discoveries
which upset the official view of fundamentals, if they are made by young men,
will incur disfavour, and if rashly published will lead to degradation. Young
men to whom any fundamental innovation occurs will make cautious attempts to
persuade their professors to view the new ideas with favour, but if these
attempts fail they will conceal their new ideas until they themselves have
acquired positions of authority, by which time they will probably have
forgotten them.

(A: You see, weíre supposed to only know what weíre
meant to know. And once you get up there, and you have discovered stuff,
and youíve played ball with the professor who says ďno, donít talk about
that. Take the official stuff thatís already been found and just repeat
it.Ē By the time you get older, youíre getting so well rewarded, youíve
got an easy life as a Professor, and you keep quiet about it.)

The atmosphere
of authority and organization will be extremely favourable to technical
research, but somewhat inimical to such subversive innovations as have been
seen, for example, in physics during the present century. There will be, of
course, an official metaphysic, which will be regarded as intellectually
unimportant but politically sacrosanct.

(A: Itís like global warming, you see, and the need
for austerity.)

In the long
run, the rate of scientific progress will diminish, and discovery will be
killed by respect for authority.

As for the
manual workers, they will be discouraged from serious thought: they will be
made as comfortable as possible, and their hours of work will be much shorter
than they are at present; they will have no fear of destitution

(A: Well, itís here now.)

or of
misfortune to their children. As soon as working hours are over, amusements
will be provided, of a sort calculated to cause wholesome mirth,

(A: All the comedies that you laugh away at, and so
on. Very base, generally, most of them.)

and to prevent
any thoughts of discontent which otherwise might cloud their happiness.

(A: So, everything
youíre living through has been well discussed, the techniques and so on.
And when you go into page 252, he says:)

Scientific
breeding, in any truly scientific form, would at present encounter insuperable
obstacles both from religion and from sentiment.

(A: From basically the natural order.)

To carry it
out scientifically it would be necessary, as among domestic animals, to employ
only a small percentage of males for purposes of breeding.

(A: Have you looked
into who supplies the sperm and so on for all that artificial insemination
thatís going on? Who gives them the licenses to do it? Specific
doctors and so on, who gives them the license? The state does. But the
state also comes with other lists of instructions as well.)

It may be
thought that religion and sentiment will always succeed in opposing an
immovable veto to such a system. I wish I could think so. But I believe that
sentiment is quite extraordinarily plastic,

(A: Thatís the emotions and so on and morality.)

and that the
individualistic religion to which we have been accustomed is likely to be
increasingly replaced by a religion of devotion to the State.

(A: Devotion to the State, folks.)

Among Russian
Communists this has already happened. In any case, what is demanded is scarcely
as difficult a control of natural impulses as is involved in the celibacy of
the Catholic priesthood.

[...]† I think, therefore, that there is hardly any
limit to the departures from traditional sentiment which science may introduce
into the question of reproduction. If the simultaneous regulation of quantity
and quality is taken seriously in the future, we may expect that in each
generation some 25 per cent. of women and some 5 per cent. of men will be
selected to be the parents of the next generation...

(A: And theyíve already done the studies for IQ and
certain traits, and they go through their whole family histories, remember too,
when they talk about using a small group of men to impregnate all the women,
basically. And he says:)

...5 per cent.
of men will be selected to be the parents of the next generation, while the
remainder of the population will be sterilized,

(A: Iíve given so many talks on The Disappearing
Male. Iíve given all the articles and videos to look at to do with the
sperm count in the average male today. The UN gleefully publishes it
every year, as itís dropping and dropping. Theyíre very happy with it
dropping down to about 85% sterile in young men. Itís not classed as a
crisis, because itís planned, obviously, or it would be a crisis.)

which will in
no way interfere with their sexual pleasures,

(A: Even
though theyíre sterile.)

but will
merely render these pleasures destitute of social importance. The women who are
selected for breeding will have to have eight or nine children each,

(A: Eventually.)

but will not
be expected to perform any other work except the suckling of the children for a
suitable number of months. No obstacles will be placed upon their relations
with sterile men, or upon the relations of sterile men and women with each
other, but reproduction will be regarded as a matter which concerns the State,
and will not be left to the free choice of the persons concerned. Perhaps it
will be found that artificial impregnation is more certain and less
embarrassing, since it will obviate the need of any personal contact between
the father and mother of the prospective child.

(A: Remember this was written in the
í30s. And in the last two or three years, weíve heard about these, the
women who carry for other people, and even homosexuals have got together and
theyíve taken the sperm, impregnated the ovum and then placed it in the female
carriers. Lesbians are doing it. Iíve got a lot of articles on
lesbians doing the same thing. They donít want to carry the child
themselves, but they want a child, and they even order, they order like a
magazine who the donor will be. You know, should we have a six foot tall
Irishman? Iím not kidding about that. I know someone thatís did
that. And things like that.

You understand, weíre not going
through day by day stumbling down through time. Weíre going through a
format, a planned format, that was planned a long time ago, because what heís
saying here, by the way, youíll find that HG Wells was writing it in the í20s;
he belonged to the same organization. And he [Russell] says here:)

Sentiments of
personal affection may still be connected with intercourse not intended to be
fruitful....

(A: So, promiscuity would be encouraged, you
see. Not bonding. In fact, Bertrand Russell, this is his book, in
the 1920s he was given a Royal Charter for Experimental Schools where he
promoted pre-pubertal sex with children, to see if they would bond later in
life, if they were very promiscuous. And of course they could have lots
of sex, later in life, they found, but they couldnít bond for any length of
time with any person. So it was successful. Theyíre always
experimenting on the public and you donít even know it. If anybody else
had tried that theyíd be probably hung in that day and age for pedophilia and
that kind of stuff. But no, if youíre given authority by the Crown, you
go ahead and do it. Much, much worse things have happened, actually.)

The qualities
for which parents will be chosen will differ greatly according to the status
which it is hoped the child will occupy. In the governing class a considerable
degree of intelligence will be demanded of parents; perfect health will, of
course, be indispensable. So long as gestation is allowed to persist to its
natural period, mothers will also have to be selected by their capacity for
easy delivery, and will therefore have to be free from an unduly narrow pelvis.

(A: Odd, that, too, because in the 1950s and 60s,
the women started to be bioengineered like the males. The males started
to lose the breadth of their shoulders. Women started to become, got
narrower pelvises, until in the 60s, because of the food they were eating and
injections and so on, theyíd never heard of Caesarean sections before, not
since the days of Caesar, basically.)

It is
probable, however, that as time goes on the period of gestation will be
shortened, and the later months of foetal development will take place in an
incubator.

(A: Thatís what Iíve been talking about too. I
read the article a few weeks ago about exogenesis, where these women said it
was unfair for women to carry children. It was an unfair burden that
nature put on them so nature was all wrong, and therefore theyíre getting
massive funding to find ways to have basically external,
scientifically-designed wombs, which they can then bring up children in.)

This would
also free mothers from the need of suckling their children, and would thus make
maternity a not very onerous matter. The care of infants intended to belong to
the governing class would seldom be left to the mothers. Mothers would be
selected by their eugenic qualities, and these would not necessarily be the
qualities required in a nurse. On the other hand, the early months of pregnancy
might be more burdensome than at present, since the foetus would be subjected
to various kinds of scientific treatment intended to affect beneficially not
only its own characteristics but those of its possible descendants.

(A: So, heís talking about genetic manipulation to
make them superior.)

Fathers would,
of course, have nothing to do with their own children. There would be in
general only one father to every five mothers, and it is quite likely that he
would never have even seen the mothers of his children. The sentiment of
paternity would thus disappear completely. Probably in time the same thing
would happen, though to a slightly less degree, in regard to mothers. If birth
were prematurely induced, and the child separated from its mother at birth,
maternal sentiment would have little chance to develop.

(A: Because they
donít want bonding with parents, you see. Other experiments have been
done in other countries. Even the kibbutzes in Israel tried that at the beginning
too, separating the children at birth, and it didnít win out in the end.
The mothers actually eventually demanded to government that they had to raise
their own children, not communally.)

Among the
workers it is probable that less elaborate care would be taken, since it is
easier to breed for muscle than to breed for brains, and it is not unlikely
that women would be allowed to bring up their own children in the old-fashioned
natural manner. There would not be, among the workers, the same need as among
the governors for fanatical devotion to the State, and there would not be,
therefore, on the part of the government the same jealousy of the private
affections. Among the governors,

(A: He says:)

one must
suppose, all private sentiments would be viewed with suspicion.

(A: Now, heís going right along the lines that
eventually Brave New World from Aldous Huxley went into. In Huxleyís
Brave New World, this super-bred class could mate with each other, but you
couldnít mate with the same person I think twice in a month or something.
So, it was anti-social not to have partner after partner.)

A man and
woman who showed any ardent devotion to each other would be regarded as they
are at present regarded by moralists when they are not married. There would be
professional nurses in creches, and professional teachers in nursery schools,
but they would be considered to be failing in their duty if they felt any
special affection for special children. Children who showed any special
affection for a particular adult would be separated from that adult. Ideas of
this kind are already widespread; they will be found suggested, for example, in
Dr. John B. Watson's book on education. The tendency of the scientific
manipulator is to regard all private affections as unfortunate. Freudians have
shown us that they are the sources of complexes.

And Freud had a big part in
this too. You understand that Darwin was put forward at the right time
to change ideas of religion and cause and purpose. Freud was put out there
at the right time too, to try and promote what would beóitís a
pseudo-scienceópsychiatry and psychology. But to try again, through
massive media and movies from the Hollywood crowd, that they could fix anything
that was wrong with your mind by using Freudian techniques. Back with
more, after this break.

Hi folks, Iím Alan Watt, Cutting
Through the Matrix. Reading one of the many books put out by Bertrand
Russell, a big player in many big global think tanks that helped set up the
system that weíve been living through for the last fifty years, basically,
because he attended them all. He was a member of them all. A big
player and his advice was always sought out by the various professors from all
different academies. Anyway, he said here, ďIn such a world,Ē this is
where you got lots of promiscuity but no bonding, and so on:

In such a
world, though there may be pleasure, there will be no joy. The result will be a
type displaying the usual characteristics of vigorous ascetics. They will be
harsh and unbending, tending towards cruelty in their ideals

(A: Thatís what weíre hearing about today, nothing
but cruelty, they come out blatantly talking about culling folk off and so on.)

and their
readiness to consider that the infliction of pain is necessary for the public
good.

(A: Now, since 9/11 youíve all seen the movies
theyíve been churning out, from again, Hollywood, that gives you all your
opinions and feelings and emotions, and behavior. And theyíve shown
you. ďOh, weíve got to torture this guy to get the truth or this building
is going to get blown up, or this school bus is going to get blown up,Ē and
theyíve churned lots of them out, even for television. Even Canada put
one out. It says here:)

...towards
cruelty in their ideals and their readiness to consider that the infliction of
pain is necessary for the public good.

(A: So, lots of torture. And the threat of
torture keeps everybody in place as well, by the way. And the cops now
just taser you to death, all across the whole world, and suffer no consequence
to it. This is all part of what was designed to happen a long time ago.)

I do not
imagine that pain will be much inflicted as punishment for sin, since no
sin will be recognized except insubordination

(A: To the State.)

and failure to
carry out the purposes of the State. It is more probable that the sadistic
impulses which the asceticism will generate will find their outlet in
scientific experiment.

(A: Itís all genetics today, isnít it?)

The
advancement of knowledge will be held to justify much torture of individuals by
surgeons, biochemists, and experimental psychologists. As time goes on the
amount of added knowledge required to justify a given amount of pain will
diminish, and the number of governors attracted to the kinds of research
necessitating cruel experiments will increase.

(A: Thereís lots and lots of them going into this
stuff. Look at that thing I read yesterday with all the fetal parts
getting sold from the States to New Zealand, and the class there was full of
people, because itís a big money-making thing.)

Just as the
sun worship of the Aztecs demanded the painful death of thousands of human
beings annually, so the new scientific religion will demand its holocausts of
sacred victims. Gradually the world will grow more dark and more terrible.
Strange perversions of instinct will first lurk in the dark corners and then
gradually overwhelm the men in high places.

(A: Well, thatís where it starts, is in high
places. All perversions do.)

Sadistic pleasures
will not suffer the moral condemnation that will be meted out to the softer
joys, since, like the persecutions of the Inquisition, they will be found in
harmony with the prevailing asceticism. In the end such a system must break
down either in an orgy of bloodshed or in the rediscovery of joy.

And then he goes on and on and
on. You understand, thereís nothing that weíre going through that wasnít
planned, by the planners. There are world planners, specialized divisions
of them, that meet every year, and get treaties put in that effect
academia. They effect everything in society, right down to instructions,
to Hollywood, on where youíre supposed to go for the next ten years.
Because it takes about five to ten years to prepare a society for a new leap
forward in any cultural direction whatsoever. Youíre living through a
script.

Anyway, I hope I havenít bored you. And from Hamish
and myself, from Ontario, Canada, itís good night, and may your god or your
gods go with you.